Beer Garden

[rev]

So, change the definition of marriage then?

Essentially, remove the fact of marriage having a legal/codified definition at all. It's just an idea -- and not mine. It sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but I'm not particularly in tune with the no camp apart from the 'equality' mantra.

Do you or ...?

No.

Care to elaborate...?

It's a cute idea, but opens several other cans of worms.

For example: are all the people already "married" still married?

Are all the people who weren't "married" in a church still married?

And what if it was changed to include marriage and civil union, as being the same thing legally?

What is it that gays and lesbians actually want?
To get married in places of worship that don't recognize their homosexuality?
To be legally allowed to be in a "union" recognized by the state for legal reasons and whatever?
What..?

Why does it have to be called marriage in the legal sense?

Special people of the left wanted separation of church and state. They got their wish.
Now they've come back and want the state to take action that affects church.

There's no clear definitions on what voting yes will mean, and similarly voting no.
This whole thing has been a setup by the cowards in Canberra to divide.
What they should have done is get the various groups together, the gay & lesbian groups, the church/religious groups, and state/governments. Figure out a way forward that everyone is happy, so religious groups aren't forced into accepting any bs, and gays get their unions recognized by government legally. Probably would have been cheaper too.

[Nathan]

Why does it have to be called marriage in the legal sense?

Because we're talking about marriage in a legal sense. This has nothing to do with the religious definition of marriage, only about the legal definition of marriage. Religions might have their own rituals around marriage, and no one is forcing those rituals to change, but marriage is not something that is only the domain of religion.

[rev]

But it’s called marriage because of those religious reasons. Our society whether people like it or not is based on judeo Christian values.
What gays are asking for is to be able to legally wed.

Where do they want to be wed?
In a church?
I’d like someone to answer this.

Because you say that nobody is forcing religions to accept anything but is there a clear definition of what the changes will constitute and how they will be enforced?

Crawf says no to the definition from a legal stand point being changed from marriage to civil union and leaving it up to religious groups to call it marriage or whatever anyone wants for their ceremonies.

Why does it need to be called marriage?
I thought this was simply about gays having the same legal rights as regular people.

It needs to be defined otherwise they open up the possibility of discrimination cases.

[Nathan]

But it’s called marriage because of those religious reasons. Our society whether people like it or not is based on judeo Christian values.

It is not called marriage because of religious reasons, it is not based on Judeo Christian values. Marriage is a cultural universal - it's a concept that is common to almost all cultures, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of). Certain rituals around marriage obviously have their roots in various religious applications of marriage, but that is irrelevant to the discussion about the legal definition and what is recognised by the state.

[timtam20292]

I just got schooled!

More like scolded

[SRW]

Where do they want to be wed?
In a church?
I’d like someone to answer this.

This was never unanswered. All that is proposed is that all people are treated equally under the law as far as the law applies. Therefore if the state certifies a partnership between two people, then this certification is available for any partnership of two people - regardless of their identity. Who churches decide to marry is up to them. These are separate issues.

[serca]

Geez it really is a complicated scenario.

I can't really see how our society as such is based on Judeo Christianity? but we are governed by Common law which does derive from Christianity no?

If legally marriage today is based on common law then I guess there is a conflict of interest? Might not be based on common law or is it civil law or? Any lawyers in the house willing to clarify all this and not charge in 6 minute increments . The unity act suggested or a specific legislation for Gays in marriage isn't a bad solution really is it ? As long as the law and society across all aspect acknowledges the legal binding of the couple.

On a side note and tangent I think the Catholic church should stop beating their chest like they are a respectable part of society. I mean that big fucking elephant in the room called decades and decades of pedophilia across the globe ( or flat earth to be politically correct and not offend), and even worse the cover ups and relocation of priests really gives me the shits, and I am amazed they still feel like they have a voice to say anything on anything. I just think it's ironic that an establishment or should I say "non for profit tug tug multi billion dollar Company" such as the Catholic and Anglican church is suppose to uphold the highest morals and values in life is so deeply involved in such evil acts.

[SRW]

the unity act suggested or a specific legislation for Gays in marriage isn't a bad solution really is it ?

I'm not sure I understand your point through the majority of your post but to this suggestion: yes, this is a bad solution. Why? Because it's not equality. It would mean treating one group of people differently under law to another group of people. It's 'othering' or creating classes - second classes. That's the current deleterious situation the proposal is attempting to redress.

[SouthAussie94]

As it stands now, religious organisations (Chuches, schools, etc) CAN discriminate towards people. A catholic school can refuse admission to a child who isn't catholic. The same goes for an Islamic school refusing to allow an non-Islamic student from studying there. A school can also refuse to hire a teacher who is openly gay. Similarly, a church can currently refuse to marry people who don't belong to that particular religion. This is how it currently stands.

Should a yes vote return the most votes (I refuse to call it a win, there are no winners from the farce that is this postal vote..) and assuming that legislation is passed, then religious organisations will continue to have the right to refuse service to people who are not of that denomination, or who the church believes should not receive service. The church will still have the right to refuse to hire gay employees, and they will continue to have the right to refuse to marry particular people, whether that be because they're of the wrong religion, or because they're gay.

A yes vote will change absolutely nothing in this regard, unless the church decides to allow gay marriage. If they decide to honour gay marriage then gay people will be able to marry in a church. If they decide not to honour them, gay people will get married somewhere else.

There are so many other debates and discussions which should be happening in this country which are so much more important than the gay marriage debate. Just pass the legislation, hold the first marriage in Margaret Court Arena, and lets have discussions about things that actually matter to the way the country runs...

[crawf]

In any case, in what I have seen in the media, together with my own personal observations, it does seem to me that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people. What do you think of the idea that, rather than a Marriage Act, we should have a Civil Union (or similar) Act. Anyone can be joined legally under the Civil Union Act, but if you want to get married, you go to a church or whatever and play by their rules. I've heard this idea suggested by a number of people and it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

That's actually a very sensible solution to this problem. The religious groups aren't forced into accepting anything, and same sex couples are legally able to be wed in civil unions.
Everyone can call it what they want, but the state will recognize it all as a civil union.
Simple.

No surprise that a militant left winger(whose gay from memory) said no lol.

Awesome, another attack by Rev. The absolute opposite of my views, but whatever.

Religious groups shouldn't be forced into anything that is against their beliefs, even if that includes same sex marriage ceremonies. Same goes for businesses, if they have strong traditional views and would rather lose out financially, well that's their loss. Everyone has and always will have different views which is something that should be respected. Though what should also be respected, is that same sex couples are treated equally by law and society, including marriage. This becomes even more important in legal situations such as hospitals and financial matters - as Mono pointed out. Civil Unions is basically just treating same sex couples as second class citizens. Maximus's suggestion would actually impact many straight marriages, considering most do not take place in a church anymore.

There is so much fear and scare mongering being generated from this debate, when much of it has nothing to do with the actual topic. The 'no' side has also contradicted themselves on multiple occasions, complaining about text messages but happy to hijack the skies of Sydney and now Melbourne. There are however concerns purely religion based and not discrimination, though the debate has really just given a platform for homophobia under the disguise of this debate. The real losers of this ridiculous survey, because lets call what it is a survey.. are the younger LGBTI adolescents who are already struggling mentally and having to constantly see this negative backlash. The stupidity from far left extremists have done the 'yes' campaign no favours either.

I'm honestly sick of this debate, but sadly we still have weeks, potentially months... or heaven forbid years left to go.

[rev]

Sorry but attack? What was it being called a militant left winger or gay? If you’re not then I apologise it wasn’t intended as an “attack”, but to put your “no” to the changing of the marriage act to civil union suggestion into perspective.
From memory, on was it MSN many years ago when we were all on SSC, I’m pretty sure you were. Maybe I’ve got you confused with someone else but I know there was one who was.

I think changing the law or act so that legally it is called a civil union, and legalising ssm, without forcing religions to accept ssm, is the best solution.
My religion can call it marriage if they want, gays can call it marriage if they want, but legally it’s all civil unions.
It takes the sting out of the debate and issue.

And I agree with your post, most of it.
Obtaining people’s personal details like mobile phones to spam them with unsolicited messages is very different to sky writing.
You are in a public place, your level of privacy and expectation of are vastly different to that in your home. You can be filmed or photographed in public without your consent for example but someone can’t film or photograph you in your home, such as your neighbor can’t setup cctv that films your backyard or sees into your lounge room windows.

[crawf]

Sorry but attack? What was it being called a militant left winger or gay? If you’re not then I apologise it wasn’t intended as an “attack”, but to put your “no” to the changing of the marriage act to civil union suggestion into perspective.
From memory, on was it MSN many years ago when we were all on SSC, I’m pretty sure you were. Maybe I’ve got you confused with someone else but I know there was one who was.

Rev.. it's got nothing to do with being gay or not. Some of your comments lately have come across as an 'attack', add in the fact that my views are hardly 'militant left sided'. And gezz MSN?.... talk about a blast from the past.

Funny enough I actually like seeing your input on this forum... most of the time.

And I agree with your post, most of it.
Obtaining people’s personal details like mobile phones to spam them with unsolicited messages is very different to sky writing.

I agree there is a difference, and honestly I didn't think it a wise move from the 'yes' campaign to send those text messages. Though I think it's extremely hypocritical for people like Cory Bernardi to say those text messages are 'invasive', but happy to bombard personal home phones with a recorded message. Which mind you, include alot more information compared to a simple text message.

The sky writing is really just a sign of desperation from the 'no' campaign. It actually probably has won a few new 'yes' supporters.

[SRW]

I think changing the law or act so that legally it is called a civil union, and legalising ssm, without forcing religions to accept ssm, is the best solution.
My religion can call it marriage if they want, gays can call it marriage if they want, but legally it’s all civil unions.
It takes the sting out of the debate and issue.

The outcome of this scenerio is the same as proposed so why reterm the Act? Doing so would mean the reform grows from simply changing one sentence of one Act to reterming the entire thing, associated legislation, services, websites etc... Ultimately, I don't care what it's called so long as it's the same thing under law for all people, but I can't see the utitlity of your suggestion.

And I agree with your post, most of it.
Obtaining people’s personal details like mobile phones to spam them with unsolicited messages is very different to sky writing.

They don't obtain personal details for those messages: all Australian mobile numbers exist in a given range and can be randomised. But FWIW, having been robocalled on my mobile by Steven Marshall last night, I don't think it's a particularly useful tactic. I ignored it.

[Nort]

We already have secular laws about couples in Australia, that's what the marriage act is.

Marriage doesn't belong to any one religion, it's something that exists across many different human cultures. If you want to argue that the secular legal marriage shouldn't be called marriage then that is an entirely different debate that has no relation to the current survey.

[monotonehell]

...I think changing the law or act so that legally it is called a civil union, and legalising ssm, without forcing religions to accept ssm, is the best solution. My religion can call it marriage if they want, gays can call it marriage if they want, but legally it’s all civil unions.
It takes the sting out of the debate and issue.

You seem to be under the impression that churches own marriage. Are you aware that a lot of people get married outside of religion? They are married in a building, park or similar non-church location by a non-religious celebrant. For example my cousin is legally married. She was married to her husband in Wellington Square, North Adelaide by a celebrant who has nothing to do with any religion and only registered herself as a celebrant for my cousin's wedding. Thousands of (opposite sex) couples have been married this way over decades.

SSM seeks to redefine marriage to include more people.

Your idea seeks to redefine marriage to exclude people.

Are you volunteering to be the spokesman to go to all these legally married people and tell them that their marriage is no longer a marriage but a civil union?

The church(es let's not pretend there is only one religion) do not own marriage. It is a legal construct which can be performed by a registered celebrant who can be any citizen whether they be a priest or not.